[GOAL] Re: Permissions attaching to pre-publication material

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:57:23 +0000 


On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) <[email protected]>
wrote:

      Hi Peter,

       

Thanks Alicia,
It's a valuable and useful development to have a formal contact in a publisher
that is able to speak authoritatively and responds. As you yourself note
Elsevier have not had a professionally organised procedure to respond to
reasonable constructive requests. (The only way I got any answer was through a
personal contact with an Elsevier).

I shan't tax the GOAL list with more mails but you may wish to note note that
many of the reader community finds it impossible to have any meaningful formal
contact with publishers. It would be a service if publishers recognized the
existence of readers as distinct from customers (who are normally purchasing
officers or librarians).

      For a description of what the Universal Access team does at
      Elsevier, please could I direct you to a recent interview with
      Richard Poyndor 
athttp://poynder.blogspot.com/2012/02/elseviers-alicia-wise-on-rwa-west-wing.html
      . 


I have already read this in depth.
 

      I can indeed help with content mining policy queries, and can get
      you pointed in the right direction for other queries.  I’ve picked
      up that you are a bit (!!) cross with us about text mining,


That's accurate. I offered a constructive opportunity two years ago which could
have significantly benefitted Elsevier as well as the Open world and Elsevier
has probably destroyed that opportunity.

      and would be very happy to arrange a call for you and our relevant
      people.  It appears that in the past we have connected you with the
      app marketplace team rather than the text mining teams. 


I have no idea what the app marketplace team is but it sounds as if it wasn't a
good decision.
 

      Please email me directly at [email protected] if you would like
      for me to set this up?  Thanks.


I am always prepared to talk with anyone, if there is seen to be the chance of a
productive outcome. At present my concerns are:
* I believe that I have certain fundamental rights to carry out text-, data- and
image-mining and that Elsevier contracts and practice deny me them.
* I have been invited by the UK's Intellectual Property Office to submit a
response to the Hargreaves review as to why IP restrictions on textmining shoul
be removed and I shall be doing this in the context of the Open Knowledge
Foundation - through the newly formed open-access list (which is copied in to
this mail).

It is useful if all discussions take place Openly as then (a) a wide range of
people can take part and (b) there is a clear permanent record. Anyone working
for Elsevier or any other organization is welcome to join the list and take part
in our activities. We have no secret procedures and will be working to create a
response to Hargreaves.

Whatever the politics and legality of Open Access are, the actual practice of it
is very poorly labelled and supported by modern informatics. This list is
discussing the "Author Manuscript" but there is no standard labelling, no
licences, no statement of who is the copyright holder. Given that the law allows
copyright holders to pursue infringers the actual practice of Open Access
supported by publishers (Green and Hybrid) needs serious improvement.

The rest of this may be of continuing interest to GOAL

      Regarding the manuscript - you asked whether the language you cite
      originated with Elsevier.  We have various agreements with NIH, so
      either the lawyers for NIH or the lawyers for Elsevier came up with
      this language.  This footnote looks like a standard bit of text that
      may appear on all the manuscripts we deposit in PMC on behalf of
      authors – I would need to check.  The intention of such a footnote
      would be to signal to the reader that they are looking at something
      other than the final version of the article. 


So - for the record - the "unedited author manuscript" may contain material
inserted by Elsevier (presumably without the explicit involvement of the
author). It is a pity that possessive pronouns are used in an ambiguous or
misleading sense. As an author I would be upset if such a phrase was inserted in
a parer I had authored, but at present that is unlikely giving that I am
currently unlikely to contribute to Elsevier journals.
 

       

      With kind wishes,


We will spell out on the OKFN open-access list the areas that would lead to a
potentially constructive discussion and possibly continue on it and on skype.
 


--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069




    [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]

_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Reply via email to